Bharat Aluminium Company Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the challenge to the order dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) is appealable before the Appellate Tribunal. However, acknowledging the non-existence of the Appellate Tribunal, the Court noted that such appeals could be challenged before a learned Single Judge, a remedy the petitioner had not pursued. Regarding the challenge to clause 5 of the impugned notification, the Court found no error in the Joint Commissioner's order dismissing the appeals on grounds of limitation. The Court reasoned that a plain reading of clause 5 clearly states that no appeal under the notification is admissible for demands not involving tax. The petitioner's claim for refund of tax was rejected, and their appeal was dismissed for delay. The Court found no cogent reason presented by the petitioner to declare clause 5 ultra vires the Constitution, especially since the petitioner's appeal was barred by limitation and they could not avail the benefit of the extension granted by the notification. Therefore, the relief sought to declare clause 5 ultra vires was not accepted. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO), filed multiple writ petitions challenging an order dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, Bilaspur, and also sought to quash clause 5 of an impugned notification. BALCO had applied for a refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) of GST Compensation Cess paid on coal for various months. The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) rejected these refund applications. BALCO appealed these rejections before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), but these appeals were dismissed on the grounds of delay, citing clause 5 of the impugned notification. The petitioner argued that the notification was issued to condone delays in filing appeals caused by the delayed uploading of orders on the department's web portal. The appeals filed by BALCO were admittedly delayed, with the Joint Commissioner noting a delay of 1 year and 1 month from the prescribed time limit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, Bilaspur, is amenable to challenge before the learned Single Judge of this Court, given the non-existence of the Appellate Tribunal? 2. Whether clause 5 of the impugned notification, which states that no appeal under the notification shall be admissible in respect of a demand not involving tax, is ultra vires the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned notification was issued to provide a remedy for delayed appeals, as orders were uploaded late on the department's portal, causing delays in filing appeals. They argued that clause 5 of the notification should be declared ultra vires as it unfairly bars appeals in cases not involving tax, and their appeals were dismissed due to this clause. They also implicitly argued that the dismissal of their appeals by the Joint Commissioner was erroneous. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, the Court's findings indicate that the respondents likely relied on the existing provisions of law and the terms of the notification.